Firstly, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I'll take up your invitation to explain myself. The brevity of my comment, which I regret, was a symptom of lac

Firstly, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I'll take up your invitation to explain myself. The brevity of my comment, which I regret, was a symptom of lack of time. I have lots to do at the moment, and yesterday was particularly busy. This same lack of time caused me to abandon the article. The author's statement that Maxwell's equations connect the subjective label "blue" to a physical EM frequency range is wrong. Its not so much an error of fact as of conception. And in an article that is specifically examining the relationship between subjective concious experience and the physical world, that conceptual error is significant. But it doesn't really invalidate the author's arguments. And contrary to what I wrote, I did actually continue reading some way past the passage that I quoted. There were some interesting facts and analysis, but ultimately the structure and framing was similar to many other popular science articles I've read, and I felt it was just ground I'd already covered. That, and the above error, lead me to stop. In different circumstances I'd have continued to the end. So my reason for bailing on the article had little to do with any deficiencies it might have, but I justified my decision using what seems to me to be a glaring error. I don't think that was wrong: it is important to be selective. Wwhat I've learned is that reading long form articles when you are busy is counter-productive, and posting context-less comments is basically noise.